Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: server-side filtering/paging, default of open un-parked work, 50 per page, and summary mode fields plus status counts. It omits any note on auth needs or rate limits, but for a read-only list tool this is unusually rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with scope, then routing guidance, then defaults and return shape. The inline API reference URL is the only slightly ancillary element; nothing else is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, yet the description compensates by describing summary row fields and status counts. With 10 parameters at 50% schema coverage, some optional filters remain unmentioned, but the critical calling context (defaults, paging, return shape, alternative) is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50%, so the description carries extra weight. It documents defaults the schema does not fully state (limit 50, summary true with its field set, open-work status default) and confirms parked excludes by default. It still leaves several parameters (overdue, client, client_id vs project_id interplay) unaddressed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource+scope ('every task in one client workspace, filtered and paged on the server') and explicitly names the sibling it is not (list_my_tasks). An agent can distinguish it from search_tasks and list_my_tasks without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Names the alternative tool and the selecting condition: 'Use this instead of list_my_tasks when you need the full picture for a client.' Explicit when-to-use routing is provided rather than implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.